Tag: Plan

  • Error Made in Treatment Plan, Court Orders Doctors to Pay Saudi Woman SR52,500 in Compensation – Kashmir News

    [ad_1]

    Court orders 2 doctors to pay Saudi woman SR52,500 in compensation for medical error

    The General Court in Riyadh has ordered two doctors, a male and a female, to pay SR52,500 in compensation to a Saudi woman, local media reported. The medical report and expert opinions showed that the doctors made a 100 per cent error in the woman’s treatment plan, causing harm to her teeth and gums.

    The ruling came after the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health recently announced the completion of the transfer of the jurisdiction of the legitimate health bodies from the Ministry of Health to the general judiciary.

    The Supreme Judiciary Council established a number of specialized departments to handle such disputes in the Court of Appeal and the General Court in Riyadh, where judges and their assistants were trained and qualified, in order to ensure quality and accuracy in the judicial verdicts issued over these disputes.

    ALSO READ: Watch Video: Couple in Their 20s Given 10-Year Jail Sentence After Posting Video of Dancing

    ALSO READ: Saudi Arabia: 34 Women Appointed to Key Roles in Two Holy Mosques

    ALSO READ: Most Popular Saudi Youtuber Aziz Al Ahmed aka Dwarf Died at the Age of 27

    CLICK ON THE BELOW PROVIDED LINKS TO FOLLOW KASHMIR NEWS ON: 


    Post Views: 191

    [ad_2]
    #Error #Treatment #Plan #Court #Orders #Doctors #Pay #Saudi #Woman #SR52500 #Compensation #Kashmir #News

    ( With inputs from : kashmirnews.in )

  • Britain’s semiconductor plan goes AWOL as US and EU splash billions

    Britain’s semiconductor plan goes AWOL as US and EU splash billions

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — As nations around the world scramble to secure crucial semiconductor supply chains over fears about relations with China, the U.K. is falling behind.

    The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the world’s heavy reliance on Taiwan and China for the most advanced chips, which power everything from iPhones to advanced weapons. For the past two years, and amid mounting fears China could kick off a new global security crisis by invading Taiwan, Britain’s government has been readying a plan to diversify supply chains for key components and boost domestic production.

    Yet according to people close to the strategy, the U.K.’s still-unseen plan — which missed its publication deadline last fall — has suffered from internal disconnect and government disarray, setting the country behind its global allies in a crucial race to become more self-reliant.

    A lack of experience and joined-up policy-making in Whitehall, a period of intense political upheaval in Downing Street, and new U.S. controls on the export of advanced chips to China, have collectively stymied the U.K.’s efforts to develop its own coherent plan.

    The way the strategy has been developed so far “is a mistake,” said a former senior Downing Street official.

    Falling behind

    During the pandemic, demand for semiconductors outstripped supply as consumers flocked to sort their home working setups. That led to major chip shortages — soon compounded by China’s tough “zero-COVID” policy. 

    Since a semiconductor fabrication plant is so technologically complex — a single laser in a chip lithography system of German firm Trumpf has 457,000 component parts — concentrating manufacturing in a few companies helped the industry innovate in the past.

    But everything changed when COVID-19 struck.

    “Governments suddenly woke up to the fact that — ‘hang on a second, these semiconductor things are quite important, and they all seem to be concentrated in a small number of places,’” said a senior British semiconductor industry executive.

    Beijing’s launch of a hypersonic missile in 2021 also sent shivers through the Pentagon over China’s increasing ability to develop advanced AI-powered weapons. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added to geopolitical uncertainty, upping the pressure on governments to onshore manufacturers and reduce reliance on potential conflict hotspots like Taiwan.

    Against this backdrop, many of the U.K.’s allies are investing billions in domestic manufacturing.

    The Biden administration’s CHIPS Act, passed last summer, offers $52 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. The EU has its own €43 billion plan to subsidize production — although its own stance is not without critics. Emerging producers like India, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan are also making headway in their own multi-billion-dollar efforts to foster domestic manufacturing.

    GettyImages 1244646864
    US President Joe Biden | Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    Now the U.K. government is under mounting pressure to show its own hand. In a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak first reported by the Times and also obtained by POLITICO, Britain’s semiconductor sector said its “confidence in the government’s ability to address the vital importance of the industry is steadily declining with each month of inaction.”

    That followed the leak of an early copy of the U.K.’s semiconductor strategy, reported on by Bloomberg, warning that Britain’s over-dependence on Taiwan for its semiconductor foundries makes it vulnerable to any invasion of the island nation by China.  

    Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory, makes more than 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips, with its Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) vital to the manufacture of British-designed semiconductors.

    U.S. and EU action has already tempted TSMC to begin building new plants and foundries in Arizona and Germany.

    “We critically depend on companies like TSMC,” said the industry executive quoted above. “It would be catastrophic for Western economies if they couldn’t get access to the leading-edge semiconductors any more.”

    Whitehall at war

    Yet there are concerns both inside and outside the British government that key Whitehall departments whose input on the strategy could be crucial are being left out in the cold.

    The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is preparing the U.K.’s plan and, according to observers, has fiercely maintained ownership of the project. DCMS is one of the smallest departments in Whitehall, and is nicknamed the ‘Ministry of Fun’ due to its oversight of sports and leisure, as well as issues related to tech.

    “In other countries, semiconductor policies are the product of multiple players,” said Paul Triolo, a senior vice president at U.S.-based strategy firm ASG. This includes “legislative support for funding major subsidies packages, commercial and trade departments, R&D agencies, and high-level strategic policy bodies tasked with things like improving supply chain resilience,” he said.

    “You need all elements of the U.K.’s capabilities. You need the diplomatic services, the security services. You need everyone working together on this,” said the former Downing Street official quoted above. “There are huge national security aspects to this.”

    Referring to lower-level civil servants, the same person said that relying on “a few ‘Grade 6’ officials in DCMS — officials that don’t see the wider picture, or who don’t have either capability or knowledge,” is a mistake. 

    For its part, DCMS rejected the suggestion it is too closely guarding the plan, with a spokesperson saying the ministry is “working closely with industry experts and other government departments … so we can protect and grow our domestic sector and ensure greater supply chain resilience.”

    The spokesperson said the strategy “will be published as soon as possible.”

    But businesses keen for sight of the plan remain unconvinced the U.K. has the right team in place for the job.

    Key Whitehall personnel who had been involved in project have now changed, the executive cited earlier said, and few of those writing the strategy “have much of a background in the industry, or much first-hand experience.”

    Progress was also sidetracked last year by lengthy deliberations over whether the U.K. should block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, Britain’s biggest semiconductor plant, to Chinese-owned Nexperia on national security grounds, according to two people directly involved in the strategy. The government eventually announced it would block the sale in November.

    And while a draft of the plan existed last year, it never progressed to the all-important ministerial “write-around” process — which gives departments across Whitehall the chance to scrutinize and comment upon proposals.

    Waiting for budget day

    Two people familiar with current discussions about the strategy said ministers are now aiming to make their plan public in the run-up to, or around, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s March 15 budget statement, although they stressed that timing could still change.

    Leaked details of the strategy indicate the government will set aside £1 billion to support chip makers. Further leaks indicate this will be used as seed money for startups, and for boosting existing firms and delivering new incentives for investors.

    GettyImages 1243963226
    U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt | Leon Neal/Getty Images

    There is wrangling with the Treasury and other departments over the size of these subsidies. Experts also say it is unlikely to be ‘new’ money but diverted from other departments’ budgets.

    “We’ll just have to wait for something more substantial,” said a spokesperson from one semiconductor firm commenting on the pre-strategy leaks.

    But as the U.K. procrastinates, key British-linked firms are already being hit by the United States’ own fast-evolving semiconductor strategy. U.S. rules brought in last October — and beefed up in recent days by an agreement with the Netherlands — are preventing some firms from selling the most advanced chip designs and manufacturing equipment to China.

    British-headquartered, Japanese-owned firm ARM — the crown jewel of Britain’s semiconductor industry, which sells some designs to smartphone manufacturers in China — is already seeing limits on what it can export. Other British firms like Graphcore, which develops chips for AI and machine learning, are feeling the pinch too.

    “The U.K. needs to — at pace — understand what it wants its role to be in the industries that will define the future economy,” said Andy Burwell, director for international trade at business lobbying group the CBI.

    Where do we go from here?

    There are serious doubts both inside and outside government about whether Britain’s long-awaited plan can really get to the heart of what is a complex global challenge — and opinion is divided on whether aping the U.S. and EU’s subsidy packages is either possible or even desirable for the U.K.

    A former senior government figure who worked on semiconductor policy said that while the U.K. definitely needs a “more coherent worked-out plan,” publishing a formal strategy may actually just reveal how “complicated, messy and beyond our control” the issue really is.

    “It’s not that it is problematic that we don’t have a strategy,” they said. “It’s problematic that whatever strategy we have is not going to be revolutionary.” They described the idea of a “boosterish” multi-billion-pound investment in Britain’s own fabricator industry as “pie in the sky.”

    The former Downing Street official said Britain should instead be seeking to work “in collaboration” with EU and U.S. partners, and must be “careful to avoid” a subsidy war with allies.

    The opposition Labour Party, hot favorites to form the next government after an expected 2024 election, takes a similar view. “It’s not the case that the U.K. can do this on its own,” Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy said recently, urging ministers to team up with the EU to secure its supply of semiconductors.

    One area where some experts believe the U.K. may be able to carve out a competitive advantage, however, is in the design of advanced semiconductors.

    “The U.K. would probably be best placed to pursue support for start-up semiconductor design firms such as Graphcore,” said ASG’s Triolo, “and provide support for expansion of capacity at the existing small number of companies manufacturing at more mature nodes” such as Nexperia’s Newport Wafer Fab.

    Ministers launched a research project in December aimed at tapping into the U.K. semiconductor sector’s existing strength in design. The government has so far poured £800 million into compound semiconductor research through universities, according to a recent report by the House of Commons business committee.

    But the same group of MPs wants more action to support advanced chip design. Burwell at the CBI business group said the U.K. government must start “working alongside industry, rather than the government basically developing a strategy and then coming to industry afterwards.”

    Right now the government is “out there a bit struggling to see what levers they have to pull,” said the senior semiconductor executive quoted earlier.

    Under World Trade Organization rules, governments are allowed to subsidize their semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, the executive pointed out. “The U.S. is doing it. Europe’s doing it. Taiwan does it. We should do it too.”

    Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.



    [ad_2]
    #Britains #semiconductor #plan #AWOL #splash #billions
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • Bigg Boss 16: Makers plan to remove Sumbul Touqeer from finale?

    Bigg Boss 16: Makers plan to remove Sumbul Touqeer from finale?

    [ad_1]

    Mumbai: Bigg Boss 16 finale is around the corner and fans are excited to know who will make it to the top spots and grab the coveted trophy this year. In a sad move, one unlucky contestant among the present top 7 will have to walk out of the show this week, just a few days before the finale. Fear of elimination looms over the contestants as the Weekend Ka Vaar nears.

    Bigg Boss 16 Nominated Contestants

    According to sources, the three contestants who got nominated for the upcoming elimination round are —

    • MC Stan
    • Shiv Thakare
    • Sumbul Touqeer Khan

    Sumbul Touqeer Khan to get evicted?

    As per loyal viewers of the show, Sumbul has a high chance of getting evicted from BB 16 this week if elimination takes place. It is being said that Stan and Shiv have more fan support than Sumbul. Also, many viewers are saying that Sumbul deserved to be in the finals but not Nimrit, calling the latter a ‘fixed’ and ‘biased’ finalist of the show.

    image 36
    image 37
    image 38

    Who do you think will get eliminated from Bigg Boss 16 just before finale? Comment below.



    [ad_2]
    #Bigg #Boss #Makers #plan #remove #Sumbul #Touqeer #finale

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • ‘Intellectually bankrupt’: Biden allies blast GOP debt-limit backup plan

    ‘Intellectually bankrupt’: Biden allies blast GOP debt-limit backup plan

    [ad_1]

    The White House and Treasury are already putting up resistance to the idea, which Treasury says would amount to a default. But disclosures over the past several years — driven in part by investigations by House Republicans — have revealed that officials believe the government has the technical capacity to implement payment prioritization, though it would be experimental and risky.

    “Most investors who follow this closely are very aware the United States will not default on its bonds,” Ajay Rajadhyaksha, global chair of research at Barclays, said in an interview.

    The debate around the potential backup plan underscores the economic uncertainty that’s already being triggered by the political stalemate around raising the debt limit, the total amount of money that Congress authorizes the government to borrow. Many on Wall Street doubt payment prioritization would work.

    It’s also a window into the fraught choices awaiting the Biden administration if lawmakers are unable to resolve the impasse. Paying bondholders instead of everyone else — individuals and businesses depending on checks from the government — would likely trigger a political backlash and potentially slow the U.S. economy as a possible recession already looms, depending on how long it lasted.

    “The notion is intellectually bankrupt,” former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who led the department under President Barack Obama, said in an interview.

    But even some critics of payment prioritization concede it might be the least-bad of what are all bad alternatives, such as legally questionable proposals like minting a trillion-dollar coin to pay the government’s bills. Conservatives, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), have suggested maintaining payments on Treasury debt, Social Security, Medicare, veterans and the military.

    “Of all the unilateral options on the debt ceiling, prioritization is probably the healthiest horse in the glue factory,” Cowen policy analyst Chris Krueger said.

    Washington and Wall Street are ramping up discussions around contingency plans after the U.S. hit its legal borrowing limit on Jan. 19. Treasury is now using accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to keep paying the government’s obligations. In this case, Treasury is suspending investments in government retirement accounts.

    The department hasn’t publicly outlined its ability to pick and choose whom to pay if it breached the “X-date” — the deadline when it wouldn’t have enough cash to cover all its bills. The idea came into focus when the U.S. nearly went over the cliff during the 2011 debt limit fight — an episode of brinksmanship that resulted in S&P downgrading the country’s credit rating for the first time in history.

    House Republicans spent the ensuing years investigating what Treasury could and couldn’t do.

    In a 2014 letter to the GOP chair of the House Financial Services Committee, a top Treasury official said systems at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would be “technologically capable of continuing to make principal and interest payments while Treasury was not making other kinds of payments, although this approach would be entirely experimental and create unacceptable risk to both domestic and global financial markets.”

    The official, then-assistant secretary for legislative affairs Alastair Fitzpayne, said “no decision regarding what to do in such a situation was made during the recent debt limit impasses, and potential responses have not been tested.”

    J.W. Verret, who worked on the investigation as an aide to the Financial Services Committee, said Treasury and the Federal Reserve made available documents that showed in-depth tabletop exercises for how to prioritize payments. They indicated “there’s no inherently structural issue that stops them from doing it,” according to Verret, who reviewed the documents.

    The committee’s Republican leaders — including current Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) — told Treasury in a 2014 letter that documents prepared by the New York Fed “exhaustively detail how the department and the bank would implement any plan to prioritize payments on Treasury bonds.”

    Lew confirmed in the interview that officials ran an exercise to see whether the government could physically pay bond payments and nothing else. He still thinks it’s a bad idea.

    “As a tabletop exercise, we reached the conclusion you might be able to,” he said. “It’s never been tested in the real world. We don’t know what the cash flows required are. We don’t know how that would interact with other systems being on or off.”

    Lew, who argues that prioritization is “accepting default,” said the two presidents he worked for — Bill Clinton and Obama — never made the decision to pay bonds over other obligations.

    “Only the president can make that decision,” he said. “It’s not a decision the Treasury secretary alone can make. No president should be forced to make that decision.”

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has also come out forcefully against the concept.

    “A failure on the part of the United States to meet any obligation, whether it’s to debt holders, to members of our military, or to Social Security recipients, is effectively a default,” she told reporters earlier this month.

    She added that Treasury’s systems were built to “pay all of our bills when they are due and on time, and not to prioritize one form of spending over another.”

    PIMCO, a bond-trading behemoth, has added its voice to the naysayers.

    PIMCO head of public policy Libby Cantrill said in a statement: “We take Secretary Yellen and previous Treasury secretaries – both Republican and Democratic – at their word that prioritizing payments under Treasury’s existing systems is simply not viable and should not be viewed as a feasible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling.”

    But warnings aren’t enough to dissuade some financial industry analysts and executives that Treasury could pull it off.

    “They have the tools available to be able to avoid a default or a disruption in the capital markets,” said Unlimited Funds CEO Bob Elliott, who previously led research at hedge fund giant Bridgewater Associates. “We would expect them to use those tools to ensure that the U.S. doesn’t experience a default.”

    Bank of America rates strategist Ralph Axel said Treasury should be more forthcoming.

    “They need to tell everybody what the real deal is with the Treasury market and whether or not this is a true massive threat or if it’s actually completely benign, which I think it is,” he said.

    But payment prioritization believers on Wall Street still argue that it carries risks.

    Even if the market for Treasury securities avoided disruption, the missed payments to other individuals and businesses could be a drag on the rest of the economy.

    Elliott said the real risk is that it goes on for months, in which case people would start to cut spending.

    “My fear is that X date is hit. The day after, not a whole lot happens and a bunch of people who are holding out say, ‘See, everything’s totally fine,’” Rajadhyaksha with Barclays said. “This is a slow burn. The longer it takes the worse it gets.”

    [ad_2]
    #Intellectually #bankrupt #Biden #allies #blast #GOP #debtlimit #backup #plan
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Hyderabad: Mir Alam Tank’s cable bridge plan comes to standstill

    Hyderabad: Mir Alam Tank’s cable bridge plan comes to standstill

    [ad_1]

    Hyderabad: The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) announced a plan to construct the city’s second cable bridge at Mir Alam Tank in the old city in December 2021. Several announcements were made by the Municipal Administration Department in this regard and it was claimed that with the construction of the second cable bridge in the city of Hyderabad, tourism activities will be increased.

    The department had announced the commencement of construction work of the cable bridge at a cost of Rs 220 crore, but since then there has been no progress in this project. It is being said that unless the budget for these works is released, steps to start development works are not possible.

    Ten months after the HMDA sought a detailed report for the construction of the cable bridge at Mir Alam Tank, experts handed over it and the authority announced to approve the project, however, the inauguration ceremony of the project was not held so far.

    The construction of the cable bridge at Mir Alam Tank will not only record an increase in tourism activities but will also provide a lot of facilities to the people of the surrounding areas. The 2.5 km cable bridge will also provide a lot of relief to pedestrians.

    Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News

    [ad_2]
    #Hyderabad #Mir #Alam #Tanks #cable #bridge #plan #standstill

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • ‘You are not meant to plan your return..,’ says SRK’s amid Pathaan’s mega success

    ‘You are not meant to plan your return..,’ says SRK’s amid Pathaan’s mega success

    [ad_1]

    Mumbai: No one can beat superstar Shah Rukh Khan in imparting wisdom to young minds.

    As the whole nation is celebrating SRK’s return to the silver screen after four years with the blockbuster ‘Pathaan’, the superstar expressed his thoughts on “comebacks.”

    Borrowing a quote from American film ‘Gattaca’, Shah Rukh tweeted, “Gattaca movie ‘I never saved anything for the swim back’.. I think life is a bit like that….You aren’t meant to plan your return…U r meant to move forward. Don’t come back…try to finish what u started. Just a 57yr olds’ advice things.”

    Netizens chimed in the comment section in no time and congratulated the actor on Pathaan’s mega success.

    “Thank you always for all the words,” ‘Bigg Boss’ fame Pratik Sehajpal commented.

    “Your words are always so inspiring,” a social media user commented.
    Speaking of ‘Pathaan’, the film is Siddharth Anand’s directorial. It also stars Deepika Padukone and John Abraham in the lead roles.

    The film, which was released on January 25, has created history at the box office. It has collected Rs 219 crore worldwide in just two days.

    As per trade analyst Taran Adarsh, Pathaan collected Rs 68 crore mark in national chains on day 2, while dubbed formats earned Rs 2.5 crore.

    “ALL #BO RECORDS DEMOLISHED… #Pathaan creates HISTORY on Day 2 as well… FIRST #Hindi film to near Rs 70 cr on a single day… Wed 55 cr, Thu 68 cr [#RepublicDay]. Total: Rs 123 cr. #Hindi version. #India biz. UNIMAGINABLE. UNPRECEDENTED. UNSTOPPABLE. #Pathaan #Tamil + #Telugu: Wed 2 cr, Thu 2.50 cr. Total: Rs 4.50 cr,” Adarsh tweeted.

    “‘PATHAAN’: Rs 219.60 CR WORLDWIDE GROSS IN 2 DAYS… #Pathaan #India + #Overseas Gross BOC… Day 1: Rs 106 cr Day 2: Rs 113.60 cr Worldwide GROSS Total: Rs 219.60 cr,” he added.

    Dimple Kapadia and Ashutosh Rana are also a part of the action-spy film. What made the film more special is Salman Khan’s extended cameo.



    [ad_2]
    #meant #plan #return. #SRKs #Pathaans #mega #success

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • A Plan for Blowing Up U.S. Climate Politics

    A Plan for Blowing Up U.S. Climate Politics

    [ad_1]

    Fay pointed to Evan McMullin, the former intelligence officer then mounting an independent campaign in Utah against Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican. McMullin’s signature issue was defending democracy against the extreme right; Democrats had made way for his candidacy by declining to field a nominee of their own. Could there not be an Evan McMullin for the cause of planetary survival?

    It was a provocative idea, even an outlandish one. Nothing in recent American history suggests a plan like that would have a fair chance of working.

    Australian politics tells a different story.

    In Fay’s home country, that strategy has already succeeded. In Australia’s elections last May, a slate of independent candidates stepped forward to challenge the ruling conservatives in some of their electoral strongholds. Nicknamed the teals from the color of their campaign materials, these upstarts battered the sitting government for resisting climate action and helped drive Scott Morrison, then the prime minister, from power.

    Aiding the teals was a heavily funded environmental group, Climate 200, which spent millions in the election. It is backed by an outspoken investor, Simon Holmes à Court, and Fay is its executive director.

    The September gathering helped mark a new phase in climate politics that has arrived with too little notice. For the first time in memory, green forces in different countries have as much to learn from each others’ breakaway successes as they do from studying their noble failures. They are no longer engaged in a long, tired struggle to make voters care about global warming. They have real momentum on multiple continents, manifested in election results from Washington to Warringah.

    Their task now is to drive the planet’s clean-energy transition faster and faster. It is a moment that calls for a spirit of experimentation and a willingness to test the assumed boundaries of electoral politics at home.

    In some quarters that process is already underway. A political feedback loop has been developing between environmentalists in the United States and Australia, as well as the United Kingdom — a kind of informal distance-learning program for climate campaigners.

    Watching Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, leaders of the Australian Labor Party absorbed how Biden talked about climate change not just as an environmental crisis but also as an economic opportunity. In Australia’s next election, Labor leader Anthony Albanese promised to make his country a “clean energy superpower” and accused the right-wing Liberal Party of clinging to old thinking and squandering a prosperous future. The message helped make Albanese prime minister, with the teal independents playing a dramatic supporting role in the campaign.

    Last October, weeks after Fay’s meeting in Washington, senior officials of Albanese’s Labor Party, including the national secretary Paul Erickson and Wayne Swan, a former deputy prime minister, visited Liverpool for the British Labour Party’s annual conference. Meeting with advisers to Keir Starmer, Britain’s opposition party leader, the Australians outlined their winning blueprint, including a climate message that put conservatives on defense and blunted the usual claims that progressives wanted to gut Australia’s mining economy to save the trees.

    Caroline Spears, the San Francisco-based director of the environmental group Climate Cabinet, said Australia offered lessons for other democracies where right-wing factions reject climate science.

    “We share a lot with Australia, in climate denial and the Murdoch media,” she said, referring to the Australian-born, U.S.-naturalized Rupert Murdoch, whose media empire has demonized environmentalism.

    What we do not share with Australia is the architecture of our elections. In Australia, voters are required by law to participate in elections, guaranteeing high turnout. A system of ranked-choice balloting ensures that supporters of independent and minor-party candidates have their votes reallocated if their first preference flops. That makes it a more hospitable environment for teal-style campaigns than the United States, where ballots cast for independent candidates are wasted almost by definition.

    “It’s a much riskier proposition in the States,” said Ed Coper, an Australian strategist deeply involved in the teal campaigns. He said Australia helped show how to punish politicians for “treating climate as a culture-war issue.” But the independent model might be tough to transplant.

    Then there is the matter of campaign finance. Climate 200 spent $13 million in Australia’s elections, to explosive effect. In America that sum would not cover the cost of one pitched Senate race. The social divisions are different, too. Many of the voters who powered Australia’s teal surge were upscale residents of cities and suburbs, left-leaning on cultural and environmental issues but less so on matters of taxes and spending. In the United States, those people are called centrist Democrats.

    In September, Fay’s idea earned a skeptical reception from American environmentalists. The 36-year-old Australian left undeterred; he understood why it might sound far-fetched to people hardened in the brutal machinery of American elections. Several of the Americans wondered if he grasped how rigidly partisan our electoral system is. Besides, they had just won a generational triumph in climate policy through their usual method of supporting Democrats. The need for a wily new approach was not immediately apparent.

    Yet it might be a bad reflex to shrug off a political innovation in an advanced democracy merely because its institutions do not mirror ours.

    When I spoke to Fay recently, he conceded there were enormous structural distinctions between Australian and American politics. Indeed, he joined our Zoom call from a locale that underscored our divergent circumstances: I was at home in America’s frigid capital, while he was under a startling blue sky on the coast of New South Wales. He told me later he went surfing afterward.

    Fay insisted the detailed asymmetries of Australian and American politics should not obscure the big, thematic similarities. The core of the teal model, Fay said, is bringing the climate fight to conservative areas showing some signs of political restlessness. It is a way of testing the loyalty of right-leaning constituencies and giving a new option to voters who care about climate but do not identify as progressives.

    Of course, he said, Democrats would probably have to abandon these races for an independent to have a shot.

    “If you can find two states and 20 House races in which this can work, you change the country,” Fay said. “If I was a Democratic strategist, I would be thinking: Where has potential for us in ten years’ time? And maybe now it could be competitive for an independent.”

    It is a question worth engaging. If the most literal version of the teal strategy is ill-matched to American elections, is there a looser adaptation that could leave a mark?

    Try this one: What if, rather than fielding a set of independents in affluent suburbs with the teal message — a blend of support for climate action, gender equality and clean government — a climate-minded American billionaire funded rural independents with a common platform of unleashing a clean energy revolution, imposing term limits on federal legislators and ending illegal immigration?

    Would unaffiliated candidates with that profile do better or worse than a typical Democrat in a place like Utah or Idaho or Alaska? Who would do more to inflict political pain on an incumbent with reactionary views on climate?

    The McMullin campaign last fall furnished a hint of an answer. The Utah independent lost to Lee by ten percentage points. But that was a leaping improvement on the last challenge to Lee in 2016, when the Republican beat his Democratic opponent by 41 points. In the midterms another political independent, Cara Mund, who ran for Congress in North Dakota on a message anchored in support for abortion rights, lost by a wide margin but did 10 points better than the previous Democratic nominee for the seat. There does seem to be some value in shedding a party label and brandishing a cause that confounds entrenched definitions of left and right.

    That way of doing politics is alien to the United States. But with a consuming issue like the climate crisis, there is no reason to expect the cleverest political solutions will be made in America.

    [ad_2]
    #Plan #Blowing #U.S #Climate #Politics
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )